Zero Viral load ?

[tryingtostay]

Does anyone have friends with a VL test result that came back Negative, which is a step below UD

[Basquo]

I'm not sure I know what that means. I thought VL tests were only detectable or undetectable results. Are you sure you don't mean antibody tests?

[tryingtostay]

I'm not sure I know what that means. I thought VL tests were only detectable or undetectable results. Are you sure you don't mean antibody tests?

I'm sure.

[Jeff G]

Does anyone have friends with a VL test result that came back Negative, which is a step below UD

Do you know someone ?

[leatherman]

Does anyone have friends with a VL test result that came back Negative, which is a step below UD

I'm sure.

that IS completely scientifically incorrect. there  is no such thing as a negative viral load count. That would be like saying someone has negative blood pressure, or negative white blood cells or a negative heart rate. Biological functions are measurable and are never less than ZERO. Death can make a biological measure "zero"; but even death doesn't bring about a negative count. An HIV viral load count is either a real number or "UD" (which is NOT "zero" as we know that HIV is never completely eradicated but hiding in latent reservoirs). You or your friend needs to look and re-read that report because there  is no such thing as a negative viral load count.

[tryingtostay]

that IS completely scientifically incorrect. there  is no such thing as a negative viral load count. That would be like saying someone has negative blood pressure, or negative white blood cells or a negative heart rate. Biological functions are measurable and are never less than ZERO. Death can make a biological measure "zero"; but even death doesn't bring about a negative count. An HIV viral load count is either a real number or "UD" (which is NOT "zero" as we know that HIV is never completely eradicated but hiding in latent reservoirs). You or your friend needs to look and re-read that report because there  is no such thing as a negative viral load count.

just want to say i'm not arguing over it, technically it is incorrect to say "negative" as a result and i agree.  it could be the measuring tool used to dectect the VL count on the other hand

[leatherman]

it could be the measuring tool used to dectect the VL count on the other end

wut?? no, on the "other end" a viral load test will still return something like "7,000,000+"

just want to say i'm not arguing over it, technically it is incorrect to say "negative" as a result and i agree.  it could be the measuring tool used to dectect the VL count on the other end

you made a statement, and I'm not arguing either. I'm simply explaining that you must have misunderstood something. Basquo's comment made sense because an HIV antibody test can come back "negative". It does for an HIV- person. However, there is no "step below UD" for viral load measure so saying a viral load count is "negative" (or a negative number) is misleading, uninformed, and totally incorrect.

The word "negative" is a measure of HIV antibodies.
The word "undetectable" is a measure of HIV viral load.
The word "zero" is never a measure of viral load.
The word "negative" is never a measure of viral load.

[Jeff G]

Hi Trying . I split the topic off on its own so it can get the attention it deserves . Please be sure and ask lots of questions when you talk to your doctor and write down the answers this time ... you have a habit of dropping little nuggets of info and then you cant remember what the doctor said or you claim that you cant afford to follow though and get the answers you need .

[buginme2]

I've seen this a few times lately and I think the confusion is how the lab writes the results versus abb actual change in lab testing technology.

Viral load tests are approved for use by the fda.  There are only like three or four approved tests with most having a lower detection level of forty and one with twenty. 

When my lab gives results they say "non-detected" or "negative" I can't remember which one.  But in small print underneath it will say.  This test was done using the abott real time etc etc with a lower detection of twenty. 

It doesn't mean the testing technology is different.

[AusShep]

I've seen this a few times lately and I think the confusion is how the lab writes the results versus abb actual change in lab testing technology.

Viral load tests are approved for use by the fda.  There are only like three or four approved tests with most having a lower detection level of forty and one with twenty. 

When my lab gives results they say "non-detected" or "negative" I can't remember which one.  But in small print underneath it will say.  This test was done using the abott real time etc etc with a lower detection of twenty. 

It doesn't mean the testing technology is different.

That may be it.  I use LabCorp and my results still say < 20 HIV-1 RNA detected.  If they changed that to negative or not detected I see how that could confuse some people.

[tryingtostay]

Ok so I had my doctor visit the other day and I asked him again about the test and it being negative.  Again another non straight forward answer.  The VL test though is the PCR DNA test.  He said it might not be sensitive enough to detect the amount of HIV  DNA in my blood.  This has been the same test I have always been tested by. 

[zach]

you are needlessly stressing over nothing

get paper copies of your labs, we can help you understand them in laymans terms

this entire thread is based on a misunderstanding, because frankly (i mean no offense) you are simply not educated enough on the terms you are reading

relax, seriously, you seem to have an undetectable viral load. dude, that is a good thing. don't work yourself up about it

this issue... let it go

[AusShep]

I agree with Zach, you're stressing over nothing.  There is not a zero VL.  I just got back from the Dr with my partner who's considering going on PrEP.  They use a different lab, he's negative and his results were:

HIV-1 RNA by PCR:  <20 (copies/ml). --this is the same result I get

HIV-1/O/2 Abs-Index value: < 1.00
HIV-1/O/2 Abs. Qual: non-reactive

[tryingtostay]

Oh you.  You guys mis-understood my post.  I was just updating the situation.  Hell.  It's nothing I'm worried about.  And frankly I didn't even create the title. Jeff split up something I thought was related to a topic in another thread.

I'm getting blood work again in the beginning of Dec so I should have another update on the VL. 

anyways, i'm pooped out. long day today, tty's later

[Jeff G]

Again another non straight forward answer. The VL test though is the PCR DNA test.  He said it might not be sensitive enough to detect the amount of HIV  DNA in my blood.  This has been the same test I have always been tested by. 

This would mean that you do not have HIV . The conversations we have had and the fact that you were curious enough to ask us a questions but refuse to EVER get accurate information from your doctor is not sitting right with me or passing the small test . You are either playing games with us or even worse being dishonest .

[leatherman]

Does anyone have friends with a VL test result that came back Negative, which is a step below UD

He said it might not be sensitive enough to detect the amount of HIV  DNA in my blood.  This has been the same test I have always been tested by. 

You are either playing games with us or even worse being dishonest .

hey TTS, was it a "friend" that first had this amazing -VL . . . or someone else? I (and Jeff) didn't understand it well the first time around and I sure don't get it now that we're talking about your results. Of course the confusion doesn't so much come from Jeff separating this topic out from that other thread, as much as things just don't always make sense in this evolving story. 

[tryingtostay]

it's kinda arbitrary who had the result

[Jeff G]

it's kinda arbitrary who had the result

What the heck does that mean LOL .

[tryingtostay]

What the heck does that mean LOL .

The person isn't important in the answer to the question.  e.g.  Are there alot of cases where a VL has come back negative?

[Jeff G]

The person isn't important in the answer to the question.  e.g.  Are there alot of cases where a VL has come back negative?

So you are now saying the person is not you ?

[bocker3]

I think you are all being a little harsh here.  First off -- it is conceivable that a doctor used the term "negative" with a VL test.  While you are correct that this is an incorrect way to give that info, as it is a quantitative test vs. a  qualitative one, it is still possible.  Again -- only from how a doc might convey it, I can't imagine a lab EVER reporting a quantitative test result as "negative".
Many folks use the "wrong" terminology when it comes to lab results.  I cringe every time that I see "normal range" - the correct term would be "reference range" as "normal" can be very individualistic.

Finally -- I believe that there are some VL tests that can detect down to 1, though it's used primarily for research. And it is completely possible that a blood sample could produce a Zero result here -- that wouldn't mean that the patient was HIV-free, just that the particular ml of plasma tested didn't have an viral particles.  We really have no idea how often this might happen, as we don't routinely use a test that is that sensitive.  A reported result of <20 copies, means just that something between 0-19 is there, so it's beyond the sensitivity of the test.

Now, I know I am being "technical" in pointing all this out -- but then some of you are doing the same thing back to the OP.

To the OP -- at the end of the day -- it simply does not matter, assuming you have been confirmed to be HIV+.  If you are below the lowest level of sensitivity of your VL test, then you are "UD".

Mike

[Jeff G]

Trying, Please do not post vague references to being HIV positive with zero viral load and things of this nature if you are not willing to follow through with concise and timely information from your doctor clearing up any questions you may have unintentionally planted in this forum . When you post things like this I have no choice but to ask you to give more information, I had two people inquire about your post and spent considerable time dealing with AM I INFECTED forum members following them around deleting post where they are frantically trying to get messages to you . I had to ban a member this week that repeatedly refused to stop trying to contact you, after several warning and me having to respond to his mod reports begging for more information I had no choice but to ban the guy . If you wonder why I split your post and asked for you to clarify what you started then this is your answer .

This is the same thing as last few times when despite having a new HIV infection and better than perfect labs you have posted about suffering conditions that you do not have and when pressed claim you will see a doctor and update us . What about your HIV dementia and crippling neuropathy that you were supposed to update us on . I am not picking on you, I am only asking that you post factual information and follow up on what you start because I am tired of doing it for you and have better things to do .


Edited to add ... it was a warning I had to issue to member and not a ban over this matter . I had my warnings and bannings twisted up LOL .

[Miss Philicia]

It actually amazes me that someone can be on this forum for 7 months and there still be lingering questions regarding the validity of their actual HIV diagnosis.

Personally I've not followed it all with this poster, assuming it was up to the moderators to ferret this out, but frankly as goes with any support group and the inherent right to privacy that should be afforded the other members of the group, I would say it's paramount that when there are questions like this that they be resolved, even if it requires submission of documentation in private to whomever in charge.

Just my opinion otherwise this is going to go on and on for months -- and again that would be unfair to our other members.

[zach]

this thread is like arguing with the kid in class that didn't do their homework. everyone except for the OP seems to understand there is a fundamental failure to comprehend the material

the last three posts succinctly lay out the case for what i suggest as a resolution

lock this thread jeff... nothing more of value is going to be gained here.

[Jeff G]

I have confidence in the members of this forum and that is why I am not quick to lock a thread . No one has been discourteous or rude so I see no reason to lock this thread, I hate locking a thread, its like Im telling you guys I do not trust you to do the right thing and the truth is I do trust you guys .

I do agree that after you beat a dead horse you might as well walk away so if y’all are done with this matter I am too ... simply walk away .